Author
Topic: New Wide Angles Lenses in 2013 [CR2] (Read 61312 times)

Bring on the 14-24 2.8L please...I envy my friends Nikon 800/14-25 setup, amazing lens body combo. It's about time Canon at least puts up some what of a fight at this focal point.

Interestingly, with your friends setup, it's the lens which is the limiting factor there, not the camera. Very few lenses can match the IQ demands of a 35+ mp sensor.A TS-e 17 will out resolve nearly every other wide lens and with its movements, one can cover an effective 12.5mm focal length if you are prepared to tripod, shift and stitch. It's certainly a nice technique for great panos.The Nikkor 14-24 is good at shooting lens charts but not so useful shooting landscapes imho compared to a 16-35IIL. The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL. The extra 2mm at the wide end can usually be nixed by moving a little further back and it's a small benefit vs the problems fitting a polariser and ND filters are compared to the ease of a 16-35IIL.In my opinion both the TS-e 17L and 16-35IIL are better landscape optics than the Nikkor 14-24....unless you liek to shoot brick walls or lens charts that is ;-D

I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim

I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III.

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.

I just reviewed this potential lens thread after heading to Best Buy a couple of days ago inquiring about the 16-35L. They said that though they could order it for me at their price, $1,499 prior to fixing a misquote in their system, however, the guy also said that the 16-35 had been deleted from their inventory. Being a fellow Canon photographer himself, he mentioned that they will often do this when they have intentions of a replacement product in the coming months.

Can anyone account for the validity to this idea?

No validity. Best Buy is a notoriously poor prognosticator. They discontinue lots of things, only to add them back later. Has happened a few times at B&H recently, too.

The point I'd make is that Canon is pretty good about covering lengths well so it seems unlikely that a replacement for the 16-35 would have a greatly different zoom range.

Jim

I don't think anyone waiting for a new version of this lens is hoping for a different zoom range.. The thing this lens needs is a big improvement in sharpness! I would never use the current 16-35L II for landscapes, not even if someone gave the lens to me for free.

I've been waiting for a new EF lens to rival the legendary Nikkor 14-24. Many people are hoping for a 14-24L, but I'm more interested in a razor sharp 16-35L III.

It is very sad that Canon still don't have a truly sharp UWA-zoom lens.

Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.

^ Posting web sized pictures to justify your point of view is pretty silly, unless they are 100% crops. The poor corner sharpness of the 16-35L II (and 17-40L) has been proven over and over again.

They are mediocre when compared to other L zoom-lenses like the 70-200 2.8 IS II and 24-70L II, and they pale in comparison to the Nikon 14-24.

Time for an update! But the same thing can be said about a boat load of other lenses from Canon.

So you think those things you listed will make a great image any more sellable? No it won't...so I would say that the metric by which you judge a lens is way off base...and I'm sure that Canon are in no hurry to replace it becuase it's still selling well.The sun star image would be hard to do with a 14-24mm lens...sure it might be sharper....although at f16 I seriously doubt there will be much difference in sharpness. The front element on the 14-24 is so bulbous that it's very flare prone. The 16-35IIL is very good at handling flare, far beter that the new 24-70IIL which every one seems to rave about. The same is true with the lower image of the light house. The 14-24mm is hard to use filters (not impossible, but a PITA) and the flare issue is a serious concearn to a landscape photographer....but of corse if your only metric is wide open sharpness then yes the 14-24mm is a great lens too.

Oh boy....one born every minute....stopped down, it's more than sharp enough.

+1 and while in the minority, it's kind of sad to see people on here over the last few days writing off the 16-35 II, 50 1.2, and other "weak" lenses. If these people actually got out there and shot with the lenses, they'd realize that lens charts and resolution tests are just part of the picture.

When it comes to sharp enough, I shot a whole campaign for a client with the "soft" Sigma 12-24 II I used to own and yet I was still able to print (cropped) photos at 40x60" for them with no problems. The 16-35II could be better, but that doesn't mean it sucks. Photographers will always be limited by their creativity and skills, not their equipment. If you don't believe me, just wait for the inevitable posts by people claiming their Otus 55mm is soft - the same people who "only shoot handheld"

The bulbous front element makes filter use difficult (like the TS-e 17L) and costly. The resolution wide open on the 14-24 is extraordinary...but stopped down (for DOF) there is little real world difference between it and the 16-35IIL.

This is why I will NEVER EVER buy lenses with bulbous front elements.

People often forget that landscape photographers almost always need to stop down.

The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

The TS-E 17 is about as bulbous as it comes, it doesn't even pretend to have a flared rim like the 14-24, however it is not flare prone, it handles light sources very well and maintains excellent contrast. There is also a cost effective filter solution for it.

The TS-E 17L does attract more flare and ghosting in direct sunlight than the 16-35IIL. The new Nano coating helps a lot, but it's a big element and it's hard to shade.